Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I agree with preparation speeches but a "Tet" like offensive sponsored by Iran would be a mistake on Iran's part. Certainly, an Iranian use of a nuclear device would make the situation ugly, but not matter how it fights, Iran would be retaliated against, and it will lose. If the Democrats think an Iranian assault into Iraq would help their cause, they are really fooling themselves.

That said, I doubt Democrats are really that foolish. Maybe some nutroots type, but not your average Democrat.

Posted by Leland at May 24, 2007 01:55 PM

Leland, I doubt Iran would fight US force directly unlike when North Vietnam fought with the insurgency in South Vietnam. However, the strategies of proxy fighting are well established. I don't see that the US has enough leverage of any kind to keep Iran from supplying insurgent activities in Iraq.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 24, 2007 05:37 PM

If I understand Rand and the article correctly what we're talking about is a Tet Redux in PsyOp strategy (this time intentional rather than accidental) and not conventional tactics (i.e. no significantly increased number of iranian military forces involved except for in clandestine activity).

This has probably already started according to some recent WaPo articles (which included official affirmation from the military that sectarian killings etc. are now increasing) and it will be protracted - ramadan doesn't start until september 12th as far as I know and that's a likely point for them to notch it up even further if they can: "suicide pilgrims".

Rand's suggestion is right on target unless the decision to strike Iran has already been cleared (it won't be a war), in which case appealing to the public right now will be untimely. The bilateral discussion might be a pretext for delivering a covert ultimatum or simply a feint living up to iranian expectations.

By the way the nuclear facilities wouldn't be my targets of choice in Iran: we get to pick easy targets too if it suits us and the collateral damage might actually be smaller with what I've got in mind. No ordinary ground troops will be needed and it probably wouldn't last more than days (if that).

Posted by Habitat Hermit at May 24, 2007 05:49 PM

Given the numbers here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/us/24cnd-survey.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

an all-time high in opposing the war,

and the stats here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301780.html ,

if making speeches is what has to be done, Bush better be making a lot more of them. The public will eventually decide where the war is headed. The public seems quite intent on becoming surrender monkeys.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 24, 2007 07:07 PM

I don't see that the US has enough leverage of any kind to keep Iran from supplying insurgent activities in Iraq.

On the contrary, the government that the US is protecting in Iraq is openly pro-Iranian. For other reasons as well, expecting Iran to have no influence in Iraq is like expecting the US to have no influence in Mexico.

Among all of Bush's unrealistic goals, this one is truly a preposterous delusion, worthy of the old TV character, Latka Gravas. You would think that they would accept the hint that the anti-Saddam revolutionaries, the very ones that they had under their wing and now make up the Iraqi government, marched in straight from Iran.

Posted by at May 24, 2007 07:16 PM

Two words:

Kharg Island

Posted by MG at May 24, 2007 10:10 PM

Unfortunately, as I've stated before, Bush's single biggest failure has been his unwillingness to keep making the case to the people. I still believe there is a strategy (poorly executed in many areas) that he doesn't want out in the open.

In warfare, it's usually desireable to draw out your enemies into a stand-up fight on the battlefield of your choosing. That's hard to do with terrorists. Forget WMD's - that was a convenient argument to rally people (which bit W. in the @$$) without stating the better reasons: to draw out our enemies after chasing them out of Afghanistan. It also had the benefit of putting pressure on Iran from both sides. If I'm right about the strategy, it makes a lot of sense to NOT come out and say so. Otherwise your enemies are more likely to not play along.

But it also requires keeping up the momentum which we clearly have not done. Now we have a much steeper hill to climb while public patience wears thin. Bush has allowed his opponents to define the great issues of our time. Making speeches at academy graduations is fine but he needs to be on TV frequently, speaking directly to the people a'la Reagan. Otherwise he sets himself up to be filtered by the MSM which is clearly not inclined to be objective.

These are grave issues and serious times, and they are being debated most UNseriously. Bush has lost his nerve and the Dems are just being childish.

Posted by Pat C at May 25, 2007 06:40 AM

Leland, I doubt Iran would fight US force directly unlike when North Vietnam fought with the insurgency in South Vietnam.

Yes, Karl. I thought the topic was about a "Tet offensive" and not a increased support in insurgency in reference to something like Cambodia. Thank you for enlightening me.

Posted by Leland at May 25, 2007 06:55 AM

The reason Tet was such a striking event, was the DoD
in 1968 was saying "The VietCong are in their Last Throes".
And 3 months later, a massive force of VietCong, rose up
seized Hue, Besieged Khe Sahn and DaNang, invaded the US Embassy, etc...

What Tet demonstrated was the DoD had no clue as to what was
going on in VietNam.

Now I suppose we could have won on the battlefield if only
Brave Lt Bush, had gone to battle, and Dick Cheney and
Rush Limbaugh had bothered serving.

But Cheney had other priorities, so, it's no surprise we
lost in Vietnam. If your best republican young men
won't fight a war, don't be surprised if it's lost.

Posted by anonymous at May 25, 2007 07:35 AM

I wonder, Anonymous...did you have a problem with the previous White House occupant actively avoiding service in 'Nam? How about organizing protests overseas?

Interesting how leftie Dems, who by and large dissed military service for most of the '70s-'80s, now suddenly consider it to be an honorable and mandatory requirement for public office. Or is that just when there's a war on and it's a convenient argument?

There's much to criticize about W., but the Air Force doesn't just give away pilot wings. Guard or not, by all accounts the F-102 was not a forgiving airplane. At least give him credit for that much.

Just one more example of the childish, un-serious debate going on. As Bill Bennett said, we have "an Army at war and a Nation at the mall".

Posted by Pat C at May 25, 2007 08:57 AM

Anonymous,

The Viet Cong's Tet offensive was a final "roll of the dice" to create a general uprising.

The trendlines were all against them:

-- net force reconstitution
-- indigenous resistance to their efforts
-- S. Vietnamese government legitimacy

Tet '68 was the desperate lunge of a dying (Viet Cong) animal.

This is distinct from the role of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) -- they did the siege of Khe San. They impersonated Viet Cong cadres after Tet '68. They died in substantial numbers because their dialect / accent made them much more identifiable than the Viet Cong cadres.

By 1969, it was clear that the US Army's assessment of the Viet Cong was accurate, but by then, the major media organizations had already written their meta-narrative, and were not about to change it. That opened the window for "Uncle" Ho etc. to seize strategic victory from a succession of operational disasters.

I blame Walter Cronkite for his lack of perspective and his willingness to judge the chances of victory.

I also hold the Army (in particular) generals responsible for not understanding the information war, the changing nature of the news media, etc.

I can understand why they would be unlikely to understand such stuff, but it remains the responsibility of senior military professionals to understand.

Winning wars is not just about defeating enemy forces in the field. It is about convincing the enemy to quit. THAT is a battle of will, perception, and belief. And it remains the Achilles heel of the (at least) Army.

Care to rebut, "anonymous"?

Posted by MG at May 25, 2007 08:58 AM

Since MG already smacked anonymous down, I'll stick to my original comment:

Tet, the all-out communist offensive of February 1968, is remembered as a military failure for the North Vietnamese that was ironically their greatest political victory.

Well, not so much. By which I mean that most people seem to "remember" Tet as what it was portrayed as; a defeat for the South Vietnamese and American forces.

That it was, in raw military fact, a disastrous defeat for the VC and North Vietnamese is sadly not remembered by most people who aren't military historians or paying attention to the subject.

I join MG in blaming Cronkite.

Posted by Sigivald at May 25, 2007 10:37 AM

And that's the way it was...

Posted by Mac at May 25, 2007 12:59 PM

As I heard, the problem from the US side with the Tet Offensive was that it completely contradicted government claims at the time that the US had the insurgency under control. And thus undermined the credibility of the government in this matter. I don't see a similar level of hubris currently in Iraq, but obviously there was plenty shortly after the Iraqi invasion ended which harms the Bush administration's credibility today.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 25, 2007 03:35 PM

Well, on the topic of Iran, this seems quite interesting:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 25, 2007 04:16 PM

TNT,

Consider the source of that link...the credibility isn't exactly overwhelming...

Posted by Scott at May 25, 2007 07:36 PM

Please tell me what credible source said the VC were not
reconstituting? Frankly the VC reconstitution capability
was phenomenal, and, that they and the Viet Minh had
been in battle for almost 30 years.

The South vietnamese government was never viewed as
legitimate.

That they required billions in dollars to be propped up,
and collapsed within seconds of the end of American funding
meant they were wildly unpopular.

That no native resistance existed against the VC and NVA
should have been a clue that the vietnam conflict was
a delusion.

Posted by anonymous at May 25, 2007 07:36 PM

Scott,
Today must be the day for strange news on Iraq/Iran. Consider this in the same context:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/washington/26strategy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Looks like the surrender monkeys may yet take Bush captive. Either that or like the last link, yet another in-credible source. Is Cheney ready to launch a palace coup?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 25, 2007 07:46 PM

"Please tell me what credible source..."

Mr. Anonymous,

What would you consider a credible source? State your criteria, and if they are reasonable, I'll see what I can do.

What, pray tell, are YOUR sources?

Posted by at May 25, 2007 10:04 PM

Ah, Pat C, you have made something clear to me - a missing part of a puzzle.

I sort of forgot that the current Bush in the White House flew for the Air National Guard. If they are anything like the USAF in their competence in target discrimination, and their general gung-ho attitude, it explains much - one tends to keep the attitudes learned in one's formative years.

After all, it was the USAF that managed to kill about as many British soldiers in Gulf War I as did the Iraqis. And the trigger-happy idiots that did it, instead of being court-martialled and thrown in jail before being dishonourably discharged, were eventually promoted - which also tells a lot about the attitude of the US, especially its military, in general.

Seems to me that Gulf War II is this sort of situation writ large - wrong target.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 26, 2007 05:37 AM

The USAF brings a level of professionalism that the Brits cannot match. I speak as a formere Air Traffic Controller in the Desert in '96. Every time the American fighters came back, it was in formation, SAME altitude, without any complaints when things didn't work out. On the other hand, the Brit tornadoes returned, loosely formed, at different altitudes, with a rather lazze faire attitude. So, before you start comparing, and labelling, perhaps you should gather more facts and less vitriol.

Posted by Mac at May 26, 2007 05:47 AM

"Frankly the VC reconstitution capability
was phenomenal, and, that they and the Viet Minh had been in battle for almost 30 years."

Then why did they not recostitute after their obliteration during the 68 Tet offensive?

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 26, 2007 08:56 AM

Mr. Christian,

Man, you REALLY need to get that chip off your shoulder.

Welcome to warfare. Target ID, "blue on blue", fratricide... these are all inevitable consequences of warfare.

Tell me, oh wise Britisher, about the record of fratricide in in the UK military in, say:

The Great War
The Great War, Part Deux
The Korean Conflict
The Suez
Malaysia
Vietnam
The Falklands
Desert Storm

Have you facts, or only a fresh shovel?

Posted by MG at May 26, 2007 11:21 AM

Mac:

Ah, the American spit and polish version of professionalism.

Perhaps Brit formation flying wasn't so hot because they had spent the entire mission flying in the weeds, whereas the American idea of bombing is from 40,000 feet.

Or perhaps they were flying evasive, expecting the American AA to shoot at them - which they did on several occasions.

It isn't all that easy flying for four hours plus at 250 feet at near-mach speeds.

Us Brits just get it done - Americans may get it done, but they just HAVE to look good doing it.

You want flashy flying? I'd match the Red Arrows against the American equivalent any day of the week.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 26, 2007 12:01 PM

Why are we having a fight with the Brits collectively here? Jeez these are our best friends on the other side of the pond. No need for this. Since Britain doesn't have talk radio, they don't have the core believers that enable fiction to take the place of reality. That's why most Brits, by a ratio of 9 to 1 now, oppose the war in Iraq. No need to personalize this in either direction, and that's you too Fletcher.

Posted by Offside at May 26, 2007 01:38 PM

Perhaps Brit formation flying wasn't so hot because they had spent the entire mission flying in the weeds, whereas the American idea of bombing is from 40,000 feet.

Nope, they were on the same mission. And if bombing from 40k works, I'd say use it.

Or perhaps they were flying evasive, expecting the American AA to shoot at them

Flying evasive over the runway? Flying evasive during published approaches with hard altitude requirements? Whatever Fletcher.

It isn't all that easy flying for four hours plus at 250 feet at near-mach speeds.

You're kidding right? Desert Shield....there was no engagement and airspeeds on those missions isn't anywhere close to "near-mach." Transponder speeds on the RADAR tell a different story Fletch.

Us Brits just get it done - Americans may get it done, but they just HAVE to look good doing it.

The approaches were not liked by any nationality, because the Saudis only let us set it up one way. However, the US pilots did it the right way, every time and the Tornadoes were always at various altitudes.

You want flashy flying? I'd match the Red Arrows against the American equivalent any day of the week.

Nope, I wanted professionalism, which I got from the US fliers. I wanted a safe terminal environment, which I got from US fliers. The Red Arrows are good, I like them, and wish they had been flying a formation over my airfield, then I could count on a safe, efficient work day.

Posted by Mac at May 26, 2007 06:46 PM

Rand seems to think that we could have won vietnam
if we had only fought another 10 years.

Posted by anonymous at May 26, 2007 09:26 PM

Vietnam could have been not lost by ignoring Ted Kennedy and cutting military aid money to the south and a few supplimental air strikes during march and april of 1975.

Vietnam was already won at the start of 1975. The insurgency was totally defeated, it was mechanized divisions from Hanoi that defeated the south. The cut-n-runners in the Democrat party snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting all military assistance funding in the FY75 budget.

How assininely retarded was that? Pretty much the absolute standard for it.

A little arial target practice and we could have finished off the NVA as they drove south towards Siagon, it needed few American boots on the ground at that point. After making 'Vietnamization a sucess, it was starved just as it was proving itself. You think the US military is strained to the breaking point in Iraq? (which is an absurd assertion on your part) The NVA had been bombed and bled for a decade losing not three thousand but millions along with unbelievable amounts of equipment.

Anyone with a scintillia of tactical sense can see who lost Vietnam and it was TEK and the refuse swept into power with the 74 congress.

This is largely why no one takes the Democrat party serious on national security. They are proven back stabbers and unrepentant ones at that.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 26, 2007 10:07 PM

In all fairness to the British aviators of Desert Shield / Storm:

They flew Tornados, and had long trained for low altitude flight. They lacked the high-altitude, precision air-to-ground electronics that the US had recently deployed.

IIRC, at least one British pilot, doing a low level mission at night, flew into a sand hill of a couple hundred foot height.

I do not for a moment suggest that the limitations of the Tornado justify an slapdash approach to controlled airspace. All aircraft subject to airspace control in a combat zone need to maintain proper flight.

Offside, "we" are not having a collective fight with the "Brits". Some of us are replying to one "Fletcher Christian", who may or may not be a Brit, but is definitely a provocateur/euse.

Mr. Anonymous,

I await your description of what you consider to be credible sources re: Vietnam, Viet Cong, reconstitution, Tet, etc.

Posted by MG at May 26, 2007 11:37 PM

They flew Tornados, and had long trained for low altitude flight. They lacked the high-altitude, precision air-to-ground electronics that the US had recently deployed.

The aircraft is well suited for the job too, and the pilots are well trained for their missions. I'm just pointing out a few that could not match the professionalism shown by American pilots in my stint in the desert. Mr Christian pointed out a few "trigger happy idiots" and I felt it necessary to balance the scales.

Posted by Mac at May 27, 2007 07:13 AM

Mike

Why is every US Based army brigade now at C3 or C4 readiness?
Is that not the sign of an army bending under strain?

Why is the number of troops with PTSD now at 20%?
Is that the sign of a breaking army?

Why is it more then half of all soldiers in the army now at
3 tours? That's 36 months in the desert, with almost zero
downtime between? That's the level of strain the Wehrmacht
was at in 1944.

Why do we have 30 thousand airmen carrying rifles in Iraq?
Isn't that the sign of an army beyond it's load?

Why do we have thousands of sailors running guard in Iraq?
Isn't that the sign of an army beyond it's capacity?

as for vietnam?

Let's get this straight?

The NVA had 100,000 men seize saigon.
The ARVN couldn't hold that? 40,000 men should
have easily been able to do that.

consider the fall of Hue. 100,000 ARVN troops
collapsed against 35,000 NVA troops.

Now I'm sure the mighty Mike Puckett would have
rallied them, but, the evil Democrats were keeping
you at home.

The ARVN were rotten, Thu was rotten, and it says something
about the republicans that they embraced such rotten
lousy types.

Posted by anonymous at May 27, 2007 10:23 AM

"The ARVN were rotten, Th[ie]u was rotten, and it says something
about the republicans that they embraced such rotten
lousy types."

It says he was put in power when Democrat Johnson was US president. Seems to say more about rotten donkeys to me. What does this say about your cherry-picking and strawmen ARVN soldiers?

The ARVN were rotten in 1967-68, that is historical fact. They were not rotten when the treasoncrats abandoned them in 1975, they had perfomred well in the field soundly repelling the 1972 invasion from the north with a little air power from us. That too is a documented historical fact. 75 would have been a repeat of 72 if the treasoncrats had not cut their achillies tendons for cheap political purposes.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 27, 2007 11:14 AM

Mr. Anonymous,

What are your sources for brigade readiness statistics? Those are (typically) classified.

I still await your criteria for credible Vietnam sources, and note that you have yet to articulate yours.

The crickets continue to chirp.

Posted by MG at May 27, 2007 02:49 PM

wikipedia is a credible source

Although the main military forces of the PLAF no doubt suffered tremendous losses due to the Offensive, historians differ on the degree to which the NLF suffered as a result of T?t. However, there is no doubt that after T?t the cadres of the NLF were more and more made up of Vietnamese from the North.

The VC were still running after 1968.

as for readiness http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,107179,00.html

And if the ARVN weren't rotten, why were they unable
to defend their own country?

Posted by anonymous at May 27, 2007 05:43 PM

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/PRmilreadiness0913.html

is an excellent description of readiness problems.

I notice Puckett doesn't discuss why 100,000 ARVN troops
couldn't hold Hue against 35,000 NVA operating
on a long supply line.

Posted by anonymous at May 27, 2007 05:47 PM

Anonymous,

Do you have anything more recent than 9-11 months ago? How could you possible think those two links would buttress your claim? They aren't even from 2007.

Do you have ANYTHING that specifically talks about "C3" or "C4" ratings for specific brigades?

I'll take a swing at your request for analysis of ARVN performance in spring 1975.

The units were trained and equipped to fight materiel intensive warfare. They needed a lot of firepower, and a substantial logistics base.

They demonstrated their abilities against the 1972 NVA invasion. American airpower and materiel shipments enabled them to so cripple the NVA that it:

1. Encouraged the completion of the Paris talks of 1973.

2. The NVA required three years to reconstitute and try again.

During the intervening three years:
Watergate -->
Democrat class of 1974 -->
Withdrawal of materiel support and airpower -->

HINT: This is the key that unlocked South Vietnam for the North Vietnamese.

Crippling of ARVN training and self-confidence -->
Brittleness in the field -->
Tactical defeats in 1975 -->
Soldiers trying to save family members in northern provinces -->
Loss of unit cohesion -->
Progressive collapse of ARVN forces -->
Fall of Saigon -->
Boat People
"Re-education" camps
Murder of S. Vietnamese by the thousands, without consequence to North Vietnam -->
Perception of US as inconsistent and spineless -->
Killing fields of Cambodia
Mayaguez
James Carter -->
Iran hostage crisis lasting 444 days, and today's war against the Persian empire.

So, there you have it. One of these days, you really MUST tell me your sources and analytical tools.

*crickets chirping*

Posted by MG at May 27, 2007 06:30 PM

"wikipedia is a credible source"

Only to you.

"I notice Puckett doesn't discuss why 100,000 ARVN troops
couldn't hold Hue against 35,000 NVA operating
on a long supply line."

Because 1968 was not 1972 or 1975. No need to discuss strawmen.

I notice you do not want to discuss the good performance fo ARVN at defeating the 1972 offensive.

Posted by at May 27, 2007 06:48 PM

wikipedia is a credible source

Okay then, let's all go to Wikipedia and start a definition for Anonymous Moron from Transterrestrial. We'll all write that Anon is a staunch Republican that believes that the war in Iraq is the greatest testament of the greatest president ever. Anon also wears pink dresses and sips sour milk on lonely friday nights.

Since Wikipedia is a credible source, everyone will know its true.

I've never really approved of Rand calling you Anonymous Moron, but well you sort of beg the title writing something as stupid as that.

Posted by Mac at May 27, 2007 09:04 PM

Mac,

I just had a horrible thought. What if there are more than one posters going by "anonymous".

Egad.

BTW, Mr. Anonymous, a good place to start evaluating the Vietnam War would be primary sources. Try "Summons of the Trumpet", by LTG (Ret.) Dave Palmer. Why him? He was an aide to Westmoreland through Tet '68 and beyond. He also was a superintendent of USMA.

Or, you could rely upon Wikipedia. *snort*

PS: Wikipedia is > as a place to start, but if you end there, you come across as, well, easily gulled.

Posted by MG at May 27, 2007 09:48 PM

David Hackworth is also a good source, but,
you folks must hate him.

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 12:01 AM

MG Let's see the ARVN were so great that in 1972:

"The ARVN launched Operation Lam Son 719, aimed at cutting the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos. The offensive was a clear violation of Laotian neutrality[99], which neither side respected in any event. Laos had long been the scene of a Secret War. After meeting resistance, ARVN forces retreated in a confused rout. They fled along roads littered with their own dead. When they ran out of fuel, soldiers abandoned their vehicles and attempted to barge their way on to American choppers sent to evacuate the wounded. Many ARVN soldiers clung to helicopter skids in a desperate attempt to save themselves. U.S. aircraft had to destroy abandoned equipment, including tanks, to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. Half of the invading ARVN troops were either captured or killed. The operation was a fiasco and represented a clear failure of Vietnamization. As Stanley Karnow noted "the blunders were monumental … The (South Vietnamese) government's top officers had been tutored by the Americans for ten or fifteen years, many at training schools in the United States, yet they had learned little."[100]"

The Easter Offensive required Massive american airpower to
support, on their own the ARVN were going to be routed
Again.

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 12:05 AM

By the way, My reference to the ARVN losing Hue was not
in 1968 but 1975, when 35,000 NVA creamed 100,000
ARVN soldiers inside an urban area.

That Hue kept falling to guerillas and small enemy forces
spoke to how badly the ARVN fought

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 12:16 AM

you leave out of your timeline:

Soviet invasion of afghanistan.
CIA arming of islamic extremists
Soviet failure in afghanistan.
Reagan Arming of Iranian government
Dissolution of soviet union.
Rise of AL Qaeda.
Bush vacationing during CIA threat warning of Al qaeda
9-11

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 12:19 AM

Mr. Anonymous,

Well done. A specific battle detailing ARVN shortcomings, including cites of a respected historian. If only all your posts could be so respectful of the subject.

As you may well know, combined arms attacks are much more difficult than a prepared defense. Lam Son 719 suggests that ARVN forces were not ready for such an action.

You may also know that it takes time to build an effective army; probably in excess of a decade from start. Furthermore, if the army one is building is not well suited to the indigenous experience base, the train-up will take longer.

I have not proposed that the ARVN were "so great". I am suggesting that their ability to defend RVN from PRV predation was worth sustaining, enhancing, and augmenting. I further suggest that the Democrats pulled the rug out from under the RVN.

Do you find these suggestions controversial somehow?

Posted by MG at May 28, 2007 04:25 AM

So let's see:

The japanese were tryng to build up an indigenous force
from 1935 to 1945 with no success

The french were trying to build up an indigenous force
from 1947-1954, with no success.

The Americans were trying to build up an indigenous
force from 1960 to 1975 with no success.

The NVA built up very strong indigenous forces from
1935 to 1975, the NVA fought the japanese in a
guerrilla action, the NVA(Viet Minh) then fought the french
in guerilla and combined arms actions leading to not just
Dien Bien Phu, but the complete wipeout of GM100 in
the Highlands, the NVA(VC) then fought the americans in
both guerilla and combined arms operations, the
NVA then defeated and destroyed 5 chinese divisions in
1979.

My suggestion would be that the vietnamese don't like
working for foreigners, particularly in matters of war.

We should also look at why the ARVN fell apart. It was
massive american firepower, that was helping them hold the
line, but, it was a complete failure of leadership that
was killing them.

frankly if the south vietnamese government couldn't stand
on it's own in 15 years of american support, it wasn't going
to last without it, so, it was a matter of either perpetual
ongoing battle, or shutting it off.

MG let me pose the question to you.
"Shoudl the french have continued fighting in
VIetnam after GM100?" If so, why? if not, why not?

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 10:41 AM

Anonymous,

Could you answer MY question?

Re: GM100

I don't think France should have tried to re-establish its Indochinese colonies after WW2, and they CERTAINLY shouldn't have tried to do it with Japanese soldiers, or ex-Nazi soldiers. In short, GM100 would not have occurred in 1954 or otherwise.

GM100's disaster at Dien Bien Phu should not have been fatal to French designs. After GM100, France certainly had the capability to retain its Indochinese possessions, but lacked the will to do so.

The question of "should they have" relies on answering "why should they have". The French were never quite so binary as the US in their thinking about Soviet Communism or the Soviet Empire. IF the French gov't wanted to build an indigenously run state that would be a bulwark against Soviet expansionism, then they should have continued, using means appropriate to that goal.

IF the French gov't wanted to re-establish the status quo ante bellum, then I would not have supported them trying that.

Does this answer your question? Will you EVER be answering mine? I prefer a conversation or polite debate, not a one-sided interrogation.

Posted by MG at May 28, 2007 03:08 PM

Was the RVN worth sustaining against the PRVN?

Is a separate question from Could the RVN be sustained
against the PRVN. The ARVN was utterly corrupt, with
significant numbers of ghost battalions and with
commanders selected for political loyalty, as opposed to
military skill sets.

If the ARVN required massive amounts of supply to
hold the line and had failed to benefit from
ears of training and support, then it wasn't going to
ever stand up.

The russians discovered that in Afghanistan.
They were trying to support a corrupt unpopular failing
government, and they spent billions of rubles
and thousands of men attempting to shovel
against the tide.

Compare and contrast The ROK with the RVN

Two countries on the asian mainland, both with
northern communist neighbors, standing against
them. The ROK government despite being a
military dictatorship was aimed at minimizing
corruption and wanted to sustain itself.
ROK troops fought with great gallantry and
needed little support after the LOD was established.

the RVN was corrupt from the start without the
supprot of the people and fell apart within months
of the withdrawal of american forces.

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 05:04 PM

"If the ARVN required massive amounts of supply to
hold the line and had failed to benefit from
ears of training and support, then it wasn't going to ever stand up."

And here is where we will have to agree to disagree.

"Vietnamization" really started with GEN Abrams MACV command in 1969. The tests of 1972 occurred far too to provide a fair evaluation of whether or not a capable ARVN could be built.

Ten years is a more suitable time period. The cultural changes required to transition from agrarian village and French colonial peasant society to a sense of nationhood takes time. It takes time to weed out the politically connected officers, EVEN WHEN there is a pre-existing military tradition, EVEN AMIDST an ongoing war for survival. The American Civil War is a useful lesson in that regard.

Your contrast between the ROKA and ARVN leaves a bit to be desired.

What was the role of the US Army in the ROK after the armistice? How many US divisions remained on the peninsula? How much US naval presence? How much USAF presence? How did this change with time?

As importantly, how did the relative capabilities of the NKPA and the ROKA change during the half century after the armistice?

Was there even enough time between 1969 and 1975 to do a comparable contrast between the NVA and the ARVN?

In short, there too many relevant differences to reduce the ARVN to:

"The ARVN didn't do between 1969 and 1973 what the ROKA did between 1950 and 2007. Therefore, the ARVN sucked, would always suck, and wasn't worth the trouble."

Please, feel free to clarify your summation, if my summation of your argument is flawed.

Posted by MG at May 28, 2007 07:33 PM

So in 9 years, the ARVN wern't able to do with massive
support what the American colonists did in 6 years?

by 1781, the Americans were destroying british forces
in battle, honestly, the ARVN were never going to get
it together.

Posted by anonymous at May 30, 2007 12:51 PM

actually, could you imagine a speech by LBJ in april 1968.

"My fellow Americans,

we have been engaged in along military action against a small
poorly armed country in attempting to secure our weak and
corrupt ally in the region. We are certain we have killed, wounded
or captured over 80% of the insurgents but based upon recent
information, we believe the insurgents are about to launch a
massive attack and press attacks against 80% of the country
of vietnam. We will ultimately prevail, in this battle, but,
it will show that our opponent is very determined, dogged
and not despairing of attacking our forces. No bombing campaign to date has even slowed down their supply lines,
the same force that reduced the french army is still in the
field and i have no measures of progress to show you.
But hang in there, if we do this for another 7 years we will
prevail.

Your president LBJ.

Posted by at May 30, 2007 06:07 PM

Post a comment